Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Pegasus

Looks to me like this new study I referred to above may give the City just the off-ramp they need (to save face) from this ill-conceived and poorly planned project!

A mega transit project is the last thing we need. Vehicle traffic apparently is just about back to where it was before and there's no indications it won't keep growing. Would be much better to spend billions upgrading roads then building the Green Line.

[YYCguys]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

A mega transit project is the last thing we need. Vehicle traffic apparently is just about back to where it was before and there's no indications it won't keep growing. Would be much better to spend billions upgrading roads then building the Green Line.

I don’t head downtown much these days. Are businesses and offices in the downtown core opening back up and letting employees work there again?

[N McCity]

Originally Posted by Pegasus

Looks to me like this new study I referred to above may give the City just the off-ramp they need (to save face) from this ill-conceived and poorly planned project!

Or make it even worse...

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

A mega transit project is the last thing we need. Vehicle traffic apparently is just about back to where it was before and there's no indications it won't keep growing. Would be much better to spend billions upgrading roads then building the Green Line.

If we don't need the Green Line then we don't need more roads, your position is not based on any logic.

We'd probably do OK with neither, given the economic outlook, but if one had to choose, then the option that reduces the amount of vehicles, and thus congestion, would be the more beneficial one. Which is upgraded transit.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

I don’t head downtown much these days. Are businesses and offices in the downtown core opening back up and letting employees work there again?

30% vacancy, highest in North America apparently. Not that we should abandon all plans and hope for the future, but there is no urgent need for upgrades.

[MalcolmTucker]

Even with the highest occupancy, it still means we have more occupied office space than all but the largest CBDs in North America.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

If we don't need the Green Line then we don't need more roads, your position is not based on any logic.

We'd probably do OK with neither, given the economic outlook, but if one had to choose, then the option that reduces the amount of vehicles, and thus congestion, would be the more beneficial one. Which is upgraded transit.

My position is based on facts. What part of transit use is at 50% of pre-COVID_19 levels and road usage has fully recovered do you not understand? Downtown employment at it's height accounted for about 17% or 18% of total employment in Calgary. It'll be a long time before those percentages are achieved again unless the oil industry comes booming back to life. If the goal is to help the economy which it most certainly is, then upgrading roads is by far the most beneficial choice. There's no interest in reducing the number of vehicles on the road, especially now when people are even more reluctant to take transit.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Even with the highest occupancy, it still means we have more occupied office space than all but the largest CBDs in North America.

Philly has nearly has much total office space as NYC? I realize that this is including suburbs but still! Most of NJ and DE must be included in Philly's number.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

My position is based on facts. What part of transit use is at 50% of pre-COVID_19 levels and road usage has fully recovered do you not understand? Downtown employment at it's height accounted for about 17% or 18% of total employment in Calgary. It'll be a long time before those percentages are achieved again unless the oil industry comes booming back to life. If the goal is to help the economy which it most certainly is, then upgrading roads is by far the most beneficial choice. There's no interest in reducing the number of vehicles on the road, especially now when people are even more reluctant to take transit.

As you just presented, you are a person incapable of logic. The only time roads are strained is at rush hour, towards downtown. So if you are to use the argument that downtown employment is not returning, then we do not need additional (road) capacity.

What is your reasoned argument that borrowing money to build roads will produce more economic benefit than the cost of building?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

As you just presented, you are a person incapable of logic. The only time roads are strained is at rush hour, towards downtown. So if you are to use the argument that downtown employment is not returning, then we do not need additional (road) capacity.

What is your reasoned argument that borrowing money to build roads will produce more economic benefit than the cost of building?

Using a completely false piece of information to claim that I'm incapable of logic doesn't prove anything other than you have no idea what you're talking about and that you are morally corrupt. If you don't anything about AADT numbers for Calgary roads then just take a seat and keep quiet on this topic.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Using a completely false piece of information to claim that I'm incapable of logic doesn't prove anything other than you have no idea what you're talking about and that you are morally corrupt. If you don't anything about AADT numbers for Calgary roads then just take a seat and keep quiet on this topic.

Which false piece of information?

The metric you state doesn't have the importance you will claim it has, but if you look at the AADT data for all the major roads, it's been flat since 2014.

Even if car traffic was increasing, which it isn't, so what? The number of lanes into downtown cannot be increased in any meaningful way, so if you increase capacity on Deerfoot or another major road, then you don't achieve much as your bottleneck would still be downtown.

So what problem are you trying to solve?

The one effective way we do have to increase capacity to downtown, and reduce congestion on Deerfoot, is to provide an alternative, space efficient mode of transportation on a new ROW.

[Pegasus]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The one effective way we do have to increase capacity to downtown, and reduce congestion on Deerfoot, is to provide an alternative, space efficient mode of transportation on a new ROW.

I strikes me that downtown isn't the focus of traffic congestion - just look at all the empty spaces in parkades, even on cold days, and even before COVID. I remember the days when you couldn't get into a downtown parkade in the winter after 7 am unless you had a monthly pass.

Will the downtown recover to previous work and traffic levels? Calgary has a history of boom/bust cycles, but this bust is different. The oil and gas industry is facing a permanent (or at least prolonged) downturn in fossil fuel demand, particularly in Canada, due to increased US production, restricted (export) pipeline capacity, environmental concerns/pressures around fossil fuel production/transportation/consumption, prolonged regulatory approvals processes, and competition from alternative (ie renewable) energy supplies.

One consequence is more Merger & Acquisition activity, as companies strive to become more efficient (ie reduce payroll costs) and as foreign owners reduce their investment in Canada (Husky is just one example). Again, more downward pressure on downtown office space (will the Husky Tower be added to the list of vacant buildings?).

If Alberta (and Calgary) can diversify its economy away from oil and gas (big if, BTW), would this result in refilling empty downtown offices or would these new industries set up in the suburbs with lower rent, lots of space and free parking? Aren't we seeing this already? Deerfoot busier than Macleod Trail, Stoney Trail busier than I expected it would be this soon, lots of "cross-town" traffic.

I don't see a need for more transit or roads into the downtown core right now. Hopefully the City study will have a serious look at future transportation needs taking into account not just COVID but also the myriad of other issues Calgary is facing. The BRT is a step in the right direction, providing public transport options for getting around the city and not just into the core. (Though I don't agree with the amount of money spent on dedicated bus lanes such as on 14th street as this reduces the flexibility of the BRT changing as future needs change).

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Pegasus

I don't see a need for more transit or roads into the downtown core right now. Hopefully the City study will have a serious look at future transportation needs taking into account not just COVID but also the myriad of other issues Calgary is facing. The BRT is a step in the right direction, providing public transport options for getting around the city and not just into the core. (Though I don't agree with the amount of money spent on dedicated bus lanes such as on 14th street as this reduces the flexibility of the BRT changing as future needs change).

That's the truth of it - I don't think there is a case to be made that we need upgraded roads but no upgraded transit. If we don't need more transit then we don't need roads. While we can speculate there might be more cross city traffic in the future, I doubt that's going to be a concern as the suburban arterials are mostly large and relatively uncongested. It will take a few years to see how that plays out anyway.

But I don't think we should abandon the a rail line that has been planned for decades because of a short term issue. Even though I dislike a lot of the Green Line and definitely how decisions were made, it's still better built than not. If we scrap it, we won't really have much to show for it other than maybe Deerfoot getting upgraded a few years sooner. But I doubt those two projects depend on each other.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Which false piece of information?

The metric you state doesn't have the importance you will claim it has, but if you look at the AADT data for all the major roads, it's been flat since 2014.

Even if car traffic was increasing, which it isn't, so what? The number of lanes into downtown cannot be increased in any meaningful way, so if you increase capacity on Deerfoot or another major road, then you don't achieve much as your bottleneck would still be downtown.

So what problem are you trying to solve?

The one effective way we do have to increase capacity to downtown, and reduce congestion on Deerfoot, is to provide an alternative, space efficient mode of transportation on a new ROW.

The busiest roads in Calgary have nothing to do with downtown so stop focusing on that location. The best way to reduce congestion on Deerfoot AND make it safer is to expand it's capacity which currently way too low and to redesign most of the interchanges. Those are the problems people want solved. Same goes for sections of Crowchild and Glenmore.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

That's the truth of it - I don't think there is a case to be made that we need upgraded roads but no upgraded transit. If we don't need more transit then we don't need roads. While we can speculate there might be more cross city traffic in the future, I doubt that's going to be a concern as the suburban arterials are mostly large and relatively uncongested. It will take a few years to see how that plays out anyway.

But I don't think we should abandon the a rail line that has been planned for decades because of a short term issue. Even though I dislike a lot of the Green Line and definitely how decisions were made, it's still better built than not. If we scrap it, we won't really have much to show for it other than maybe Deerfoot getting upgraded a few years sooner. But I doubt those two projects depend on each other.

The Green Line might have been an idea for decades but there's only been a relatively few years of actual planning. Supporters of that line need to face reality. The line as currently proposed will be a disaster and the business case for it is very weak. Upgrading and expanding Deerfoot is a no-brainer. The road is 100% over capacity in places and many sections are not safe due to horrible design decisions. That freeway also carries a lot of goods to/from markets which is good for our economy. Spending $5+ billion on a badly designed LRT line that likely will see little use makes no sense now. Even in good times it made no sense. For $5 billion we could end up with a road network that would allow for easy movement of people and goods. We need to get back to the days where the economy was our main focus.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

The busiest roads in Calgary have nothing to do with downtown so stop focusing on that location. The best way to reduce congestion on Deerfoot AND make it safer is to expand it's capacity which currently way too low and to redesign most of the interchanges. Those are the problems people want solved. Same goes for sections of Crowchild and Glenmore.

Deerfoot has nothing to do with downtown? Crowchild has nothing to do with downtown?

Glenmore's issues I'll grant you are less downtown focused, but fixing it would also be the hardest. No way you'll ever get more than 6 through lanes going through all that.

What is the actual problem you're concerned about? Rush hour congestion?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

The Green Line might have been an idea for decades but there's only been a relatively few years of actual planning. Supporters of that line need to face reality. The line as currently proposed will be a disaster and the business case for it is very weak. Upgrading and expanding Deerfoot is a no-brainer. The road is 100% over capacity in places and many sections are not safe due to horrible design decisions. That freeway also carries a lot of goods to/from markets which is good for our economy. Spending $5+ billion on a badly designed LRT line that likely will see little use makes no sense now. Even in good times it made no sense. For $5 billion we could end up with a road network that would allow for easy movement of people and goods. We need to get back to the days where the economy was our main focus.

Where is your business case for upgrading Deerfoot?

We don't have one, as none has been presented to us. At least we have some numbers for the Green Line, though I agree they aren't exactly gleamingly positive. Still, it will have the effect of reducing congestion rather than increasing it as upgrading Deerfoot would, so I can't see the business case for doing that being better.

If you are only concerned about the economy (a fair position) then taxing the people less to let them spend the money productively is best unless you have good evidence the cost of the investment is less than the economic benefit. Given that our economy was doing great in 2014 with worse roads, I don't think it's the roads holding us back.

[N McCity]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Which false piece of information?
Even if car traffic was increasing, which it isn't, so what? The number of lanes into downtown cannot be increased in any meaningful way, so if you increase capacity on Deerfoot or another major road, then you don't achieve much as your bottleneck would still be downtown.

So what problem are you trying to solve?

There is a flaw with this logic as well as with what you are arguing against. The congestion will be moved downtown as you say as it will become the next bottleneck. This is based on the assumption that the overwhelming majority of traffic on Deerfoot when there is congestion is trying to get to and from downtown. Historically a lot of it has been and still will be for sure, maybe even most of it, but there is a lot of commuting to other places of work and people going about their days that would be using the road at the same time that would not be filling downtown. The point is downtown isn't everything.

To suggest that improving Deerfoot does next to nothing is a bit simplistic. It may not do much for certain people but would benefit others. It would also benefit the movement of goods and the safety of it. As it stands, I've only seen at most a handful of roads in North America scarier than Deerfoot. Roads should not exclusively be the infrastructure we put our money into, but they are important especially in a sprawled winter city as much as some people love to try to deny it.

This is all of course with the fact that the SE leg of the line would be more effective in moving commuters. If you lived near the hypothetical Centre St street car, I would think taking Deerfoot or could still be faster unless you lived in Crescent Heights or something.

[craner]

http://https://globalnews.ca/news/7509243/calgarys-green-line-lrt-derailed-mciver/

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by craner

http://https://globalnews.ca/news/7509243/calgarys-green-line-lrt-derailed-mciver/

That's a Doug Ford move, with the cancelation of the Hamilton LRT. Claim the cost estimates are way off during the RFP process and cancel the project before the bids come in. Pushing the Green Line another year would only increase the costs further, not just because of inflation and competition from other similar projects around the country, but also because the Province and City can not be taken seriously.